Conservative Refocus

While many have stated that the worldwide man-made global warming furor has subsided, we still have pockets of ferocious "Chicken Littles" scampering about and repeatedly yelling "the sky is falling"  in journalism reports, academian doom-saying and scientific funding proselytism.

In that vein, NY Times Liberal Columnist, Paul Krugman, citing the end of Cap and Trade legislation and our impending doom, has weighed in to publicly mourn the loss of  the global redistributionist attempts in the form of carbon emitting taxation.

Krugman begins by eluding to the, apparently, Pantheistic Gods, chuckling at Man's decision to end climate change action in the hottest stretch of temperatures on record.  Amazingly, we start out in agreement!  It's what they are chuckling about that is in argument.  The premise that Man has any sort of ability to effect climate control is what they should "euphemistically" be chuckling about.  Paul, further, the entire globe just suffered through one of the harshest winters on record. 

Chicken Little's Favorite Band: Pauley and The Meltdown Hockeysticks

 Typically, Krugman takes a couple of months of heightened temperatures while leaving out the prior record-breaking season of global cold in his generous example.  He then goes even further to state that 2005 was the warmest year on record, which, in actuality, it was indeed the warmest year in a 15 year trend of cooling temperatures.

What the "real Scientists" are actually pointing to now is the sun or solar cycle and its massive affect on Earth temperatures as, logically, being the actual, if not self-evident, determinant of global temperatures.  As pointed out in an earlier article titled  "Global Warming Meltdown", the vagaries of earthen temperatures are volatile at best and are difficult to observe and draw conclusions from--even in a 500 year period.  Further, there are still concerns that the true threat in our impending future might be a trend towards global cooling and its affect on growing seasons, etc.

Paul then wonders if deniers will ever say, "OK, I guess I was wrong."

To which we would state, go ahead Paul--say it, we are waiting-- if you are referring to the deniers of the "truth."  Your European Socialist counterparts have all, pretty much, piled off the bus and sprinted away regarding anthropogenic global warming.  Perhaps you might consider reading something other than the NY Times to get up to speed on things.

Help!  His Argument Has Fallen and It Can't Get Up!

Paul then goes on to question the reasons for climate change legislation's having died in the Senate and proceeds to tell us what didn't cause the failure, in his opinion.

His first reason is that we didn't fail to act because of legitimate scientific doubts.  He says every piece of valid evidence of long-term temperature averages, arctic sea ice volumes, melting glaciers etc., points to a continuing and possibly accelerating rise in global temperatures.

Our response, much like taking candy from a baby, would be that Paul has already hit the nail on the head for us when he qualifies his dictum with the word valid.  Virtually every piece of evidence Krugman cites has been shown to be largely invalid, from the hidden temperatures in Mann's hockey stick to the shifting--if even existent--Chinese monitoring stations, to the unreported newly formed ice that gets left out of various studies due to their academian inconvenient truths coming to bear in an antagonist counterpoint to these studies.

Paul then states the bald face lie that the evidence has not been tainted by scientific misbehavior.  He goes on to say, "you have probably heard about the accusations against researchers, fabricated data, supposedly damning "Climategate emails" and so on but each supposed scandal was eventually unmasked as a fraud."  Yet Paul fails to cite any evidence of such fraud against the researchers.  This is due simply to the fact that the fraud against the researchers only exists in Paul's very fluid imagination, which seems plugged into another, etheric domain.

There has been no countermanding evidence of fraud against the exposers--not even a tittle.  Despite the fact that you will rarely read of the actual research fraud within the American media, the simple truth is that the British media has done a thorough job of uncovering the scandal along with American Bloggers and American Scientists.  It is true that Michael Mann, who was at the center of the scandal, has been let off the hook, but only by an extremely wide and scientifically diverse panel of six fellow Academians?--which is all Paul requires to support his sagging, shallow argument, apparently.

Flatulence on A Planetary Scale

Next Paul questions if reasonable concerns about the economic impact of climate legislation blocked action?  His answer:  "No."  Paul states that we should note how Conservatives who laud the limitless power and flexibility of markets turn around and insist the economy would collapse if we were to put a price on carbon.  All serious estimates suggest we could phase in limits on greenhouse gas emissions with, at most, a small impact on the economy's growth rate.

Our answer:  Indeed, Paul, we have heard this old Liberal song played many times before.  In actuality, placing unnatural government limits and/or requirements i.e.--phasing in--on industry is precisely what caused our current economic meltdown in housing.  Remember that, Paul?  Remember the strengthened (Democratic) Community Reinvestment Act, the practice of redlining and its Legislative answer, which was to arm-twist banks into making subprime, signature-only loans that unwitting individuals could ill-afford?  And then the coercement of mortgage purchasing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy these loans and later sell them to Wall Street as a packaged bundle of worthless turdles in a perfumed and lovely package?  And they then used virtually every possible (and some impossible) measure at their disposal to try to make these flatulent CDOs profitable?

So, Paul, in stark mindfulness, we know how you Statists enjoy phasing in various Governmental policies.  As a matter of fact, we have suffered through one phasing in after another over the past 18 months and shudder now in despair at the damaging collective effects of your efforts.  In fact, everything that the Socialist Democrats have accomplished has been at the extreme expense of Middle America.  But is not this what you wanted?  And further, how long do you think it might be before these policies infest or infect themselves into your storied towers?

Phasing in Failure Hasn't Worked So Far, But If at First You Don't Succeed....

We have seen and understand the Cap and Tax policies that the real Obama wished to put into play in order to eliminate coal powered plants and likewise.  His answer was to make it impossible to even build such plants despite the fact that no practical alternative exists.  One  has to build a new house before burning down the old one, otherwise, suffering will rule the day.  But the ends justify the means in your world.  So, no thanks, you can keep your phased-in policies and perhaps send them to Greece or Spain and see if they need even more of the same.

 Paul then goes on to conclude that greed and cowardice were the reasons that the legislation died in the Senate, which is another way of saying, "I have no idea why the legislation died in the Senate."  And yet, we can simplify it for you Paul.  It's simply because the Democrats no longer have the stomach for governing against the Will of the People.  They are beginning to fear much more than just losing an election.  Additionally, your "Messiah" has lost much of his popularity and, therefore, much of his legislative prowess.  It ain't rocket science, Einstein.  Obama and the Democrats have spent all of their political capital along with all of America's treasury.  This is the answer that seems to elude you, even now.

Paul goes on then to typically cite "Big Business" as being the harbinger of all ills and as having funded anti-environmentalists and the like to employ a campaign of disinformation against Cap and Trade.  Yada, yada, yada.  Even if that were true, these companies lack the megaphone that is "Big Media," as well as the clout that encompasses Big Government.  Further, who could possibly blame any company for looking after its own employees and interests against a burgeoning State Machine that seems intent upon eventually nationalizing every industry in its path?

Yet Paul degrades further into besmirching even his own kind as he points to politicians who spoke out vociferously against Cap and Trade when we now understand that the President himself was one of the largest receivers of Big Oil money.  In fact, big business knows little if any limitation between one party or another, Paul--you know this.  One of Nancy Pelosi's largest contributors was both a health insurance and a pharmaceutical company, so the evil is spread pretty evenly on that scale.  But have you ever looked at the Union's largest donation recipients, Paul?  Why don't you check that out and get back to us.

Living within the Matrix: A Requiem for a Dream

Krugman then singles out Sen. John McCain, who also just happens to be Obama's favorite Senator, as being the greatest friend to the environment at one time, but who now seems to have switched sides and is no longer a "true believer."  Krugman then states that McCain suddenly sacrificed his principles in the interests of his political career.

Paul, have you ever considered the fact that Sen. McCain, being a pretty bright guy, suddenly switched his outlook on global warming when he finally realized the extreme mountain of evidence that points to man-made global warming theory as being a hoax?

The simple fact is, Ladies and Gentlemen, that Environmental Marxism in the form of redistribution lies at the heart of both global warming theory and Cap and Trade taxation.  It is simply that simple.

Either take the little red pill and unhook from the Matrix or keep drinking the red Kool-aid in your cozy pod Paul.  Either way, most Americans have decided to unhook and stand up for their fading way of life while there is yet time.

It's neither greed nor cowardice,  but rather it's simply what is right, true and necessary.

Barry Secrest